Former military psychologist on ethical contradictions of military psychology
May 5th, 2009
Former military psychologist Jack Dresser has circulated in an email this thought-provoking comment on the ethical contradictions underlying military psychology. He has kindly given me permission to reproduce it:
I was an Army psychologist during the Vietnam War, and to update my perspective, more recently attended a conference of Army psychologists and psychiatrists at Ft. Lewis following my attendance at Lt. Ehren Watada’s court-martial for refusing deployment to Iraq. The directive to military shrinks was and remains “supporting the mission” and returning the soldier to duty ASAP. Since the mission is often both life- and sanity-threatening, and can generate severe dissonance with normal conscience and empathic affect, the formal expectations of military psychology inherently violate the ethical requirement to serve the best interests of the client. The torture rationalization is simply a logical extension of this fundamental ethical breach.
As Chief Psychologist at Madigan General Hospital, I followed normal ethical procedures, helped numerous soldiers decide for themselves about participation in military missions or remaining in the military itself, testified truthfully at courts-martial despite what the Army wanted, and took my chances with command disapproval. A military psychologist may be asked or even ordered to compromise ethical principles, but as in any professional setting need not and should not comply. The Nuremberg Principle is incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and any psychologist endorsing or engaging in torture should be expelled from the APA as well as prosecuted.
Jack Dresser, Ph.D.
Political & Prevention Psychology
Veterans for Peace
Co-director, The Al-Nakba Awareness Project
Entry Filed under: APA, Accountability, Psychology, Torture, US Troops